On 7/23/2025 10:25 AM, Allen Robinson wrote:
Can you point to the specific section that you are referring to, if
it's not section 2.2?
2.3.
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gondwana-dkim2-motivation-03.html#section-2.3>A
signed bounce format, sent in reverse along the same path
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gondwana-dkim2-motivation-03.html#name-a-signed-bounce-format-sent>
By having the mail-from address be signed and aligned to the
signing domain...
My understanding is that there are two separate alignment
requirements. From section 2.2:
1) For signature chains with exactly one signature, the signature's
domain and the domain in the 5322.From must be aligned.
By having the initial signature be from the domain aligned to the
From or Sender header...
What is strange about this text is that there is nothing in the current
work that I've seen using the Sender field.
(Historical note: Domainkeys used Sender:, not From:.)
The reality with DMARC and therefore with the current work's attempt to
approximate/remedy/replace DMARC is that it forces the functional
semantics of From: to be what Sender: was defined to mean. This has
serious negative effects on end-user experience.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
[email protected]
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @[email protected]
+1.408.329.0791
Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
Northern California Coastal Region
Information & Planning Coordinator
American Red Cross
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
